Has Political Correctness Gone too Far?

[Seperates]

I was getting to that point. My point is that the idea of 'progress' is relative. We are obsessed with progress to even think what we are progressing towards. Authoritarian ethics is towards an eternal status quo. 'Progress' seeks to buck a status quo. But who defines what is and isn't progress?

It doesn't even matter.
Darwinianism will out, memetics will ensure it.

Change for the sake of change and such.

Yeah, but what is the point they are striving for, even if they do not reach it?

[Ostroeuropa]

It doesn't even matter.
Darwinianism will out, memetics will ensure it.

Change for the sake of change and such.

Yeah, but what is the point they are striving for, even if they do not reach it?

Evolution does not have an end goal.
Nor should society. Memetics will decide it.

[Seperates]

No, work should only ever be a means to an end. The Protestant work ethic is fundamentally against the ideal of progress.

Work is individual actualization of progress, bruh.

Good ole Weber.

[Seperates]

Yeah, but what is the point they are striving for, even if they do not reach it?

Evolution does not have an end goal.
Nor should society. Memetics will decide it.

So there is no agency within humanity?

[Morr]

That's quite right, but the tapeworm couldn't bond back.

Nor can the fetus until it is born.

Are you suggesting a fetus is as psychologically advanced as a tapeworm?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/article ... psychology

[Seperates]

Nor can the fetus until it is born.

Are you suggesting a fetus is as psychologically advanced as a tapeworm?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/article ... psychology

Huh... interesting article. Perhaps pregnancy is the most 'intimate' moment for our species.

[Ostroeuropa]

Evolution does not have an end goal.
Nor should society. Memetics will decide it.

So there is no agency within humanity?

Depends what you mean by agency.
A society can decide to eat their children.
A society can decide not to.

Their choices and actions have agency.

But ultimately, progress is served through the first society going extinct as a result of their actions and such.

[Morr]

Yeah, but what is the point they are striving for, even if they do not reach it?

Evolution does not have an end goal.
Nor should society. Memetics will decide it.

Have you thought for a moment that memetics are controlled by marketers and power brokers? What if what they're shilling leads to Brave New World? Is that desirable?

[Ostroeuropa]

Evolution does not have an end goal.
Nor should society. Memetics will decide it.

Have you thought for a moment that memetics are controlled by marketers and power brokers? What if what they're shilling leads to Brave New World? Is that desirable?

Only to an extent. The viability and internal consistency and such of memes in themselves also matters.

As for BNW?
It's fine.

We're all off topic by the way.

[Morr]

Are you suggesting a fetus is as psychologically advanced as a tapeworm?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/article ... psychology

Huh... interesting article. Perhaps pregnancy is the most 'intimate' moment for our species.

I think so, yeah. Two human beings becoming one is very intimate, that is why sex is so intimate.

[Morr]

Have you thought for a moment that memetics are controlled by marketers and power brokers? What if what they're shilling leads to Brave New World? Is that desirable?

Only to an extent. The viability and internal consistency and such of memes in themselves also matters.

As for BNW?
It's fine.

We're all off topic by the way.

Not so, since political correctness changes with le progress meme.

[Morr]

Have you read Notes from Underground, Ostro?

[Seperates]

So there is no agency within humanity?

Depends what you mean by agency.
A society can decide to eat their children.
A society can decide not to.

Their choices and actions have agency.

But ultimately, progress is served through the first society going extinct as a result of their actions and such.

Yeah, but societies don't operate in a vacuum. Especially in today's era of mass communication. Is it ethical or even in our best interest to destroy sustainable foreign markets, even if they do not have the competitive edge? Is it ethical to promote your own cultural beauty standards and then sell products based on those standards?

Perhaps our own society will destroy itself under the guise of unsustainable 'progress'. Perhaps 'progress' isn't a new smart-phone every two years. Perhaps creating more and more complex societal structures of interdependence isn't 'progress'. Perhaps 'progress' is understanding our material limitations.

My point is that progress happens, but we define what it is. Progress for progress sake is not a thing that exists. I am struggling with an example of someone who does something simply for itself. Physics and chemistry may work that way, but I am struggling with the idea that we do.

[Seperates]

Only to an extent. The viability and internal consistency and such of memes in themselves also matters.

As for BNW?
It's fine.

We're all off topic by the way.

Not so, since political correctness changes with le progress meme.

Thanks Morr, I was going to get to that. Essentially, part of the point is that most political correctness is given to us in the idea of 'progress' without even questioning if that 'progress' is even desirable. It is important to understand the agency and power politics behind the movement. P.C. terminology is a way of defining discourse and who has immediate control of discourse in certain situations.

[Morr]

Depends what you mean by agency.
A society can decide to eat their children.
A society can decide not to.

Their choices and actions have agency.

But ultimately, progress is served through the first society going extinct as a result of their actions and such.

Yeah, but societies don't operate in a vacuum. Especially in today's era of mass communication. Is it ethical or even in our best interest to destroy sustainable foreign markets, even if they do not have the competitive edge? Is it ethical to promote your own cultural beauty standards and then sell products based on those standards?

Perhaps our own society will destroy itself under the guise of unsustainable 'progress'. Perhaps 'progress' isn't a new smart-phone every two years. Perhaps creating more and more complex societal structures of interdependence isn't 'progress'. Perhaps 'progress' is understanding our material limitations.

My point is that progress happens, but we define what it is. Progress for progress sake is not a thing that exists. I am struggling with an example of someone who does something simply for itself. Physics and chemistry may work that way, but I am struggling with the idea that we do.

What baffles me is how someone can say whatever memetics win, those are preferable, full stop, without any idea what they might be. It plays right into the hands of the sliver of people who control most memetics.

[The Qeiiam Star Cluster]

Or we could just not take the idiots who exploit it seriously. Be it radical feminists or a radical presidential candidate

Doesn't work. Ultimately, political correctness is about applying social pressure and such to people holding views out of step with society.
Merely ignoring them doesn't work.

We need to purge SJWs and feminists from all institutions of power and influence, and that can be done by turning them into people who are toxic to associate with.

Failure to do so will result in them continuing to use their considerable institutional and media power to control the narrative of society and prevent equality.

A CEO who identifies as a feminist should be protested, their company spammed with complaints, boycotts, etc, until they are fired.
Rinse repeat.

So your solution to PC is... more PC?

[Seperates]

Yeah, but societies don't operate in a vacuum. Especially in today's era of mass communication. Is it ethical or even in our best interest to destroy sustainable foreign markets, even if they do not have the competitive edge? Is it ethical to promote your own cultural beauty standards and then sell products based on those standards?

Perhaps our own society will destroy itself under the guise of unsustainable 'progress'. Perhaps 'progress' isn't a new smart-phone every two years. Perhaps creating more and more complex societal structures of interdependence isn't 'progress'. Perhaps 'progress' is understanding our material limitations.

My point is that progress happens, but we define what it is. Progress for progress sake is not a thing that exists. I am struggling with an example of someone who does something simply for itself. Physics and chemistry may work that way, but I am struggling with the idea that we do.

What baffles me is how someone can say whatever memetics win, those are preferable, full stop, without any idea what they might be. It plays right into the hands of the sliver of people who control most memetics.

It is important to recognize the agency behind 'progress' and not see it as an inevitability, nor as a scientific or divine force.

[Ostroeuropa]

Doesn't work. Ultimately, political correctness is about applying social pressure and such to people holding views out of step with society.
Merely ignoring them doesn't work.

We need to purge SJWs and feminists from all institutions of power and influence, and that can be done by turning them into people who are toxic to associate with.

Failure to do so will result in them continuing to use their considerable institutional and media power to control the narrative of society and prevent equality.

A CEO who identifies as a feminist should be protested, their company spammed with complaints, boycotts, etc, until they are fired.
Rinse repeat.

So your solution to PC is... more PC?

The tactics used are out of the box now. All that can be done is changing who uses them.

[Morr]

Not so, since political correctness changes with le progress meme.

Thanks Morr, I was going to get to that. Essentially, part of the point is that most political correctness is given to us in the idea of 'progress' without even questioning if that 'progress' is even desirable. It is important to understand the agency and power politics behind the movement. P.C. terminology is a way of defining discourse and who has immediate control of discourse in certain situations.

Indeed. I think what the most remarkable thing about is, is that though it is frankly presented as secular, it is a way of presenting value judgements as facts, and failure to concur with this or that value as some sort of fallacy. Morality was forever changed when secular psychology, under Protestantism, started trying to fulfill the exact same function as spiritual confession in medicating moral disorders. I think a parallel to that political correctness as some sort of fallacy: if you don't hold this value, you are on the wrong side of the facts, you are disordered with reality.

[Morr]

What baffles me is how someone can say whatever memetics win, those are preferable, full stop, without any idea what they might be. It plays right into the hands of the sliver of people who control most memetics.

It is important to recognize the agency behind 'progress' and not see it as an inevitability, nor as a scientific or divine force.

I think that's right, which is actually why agency is being increasingly marginalized. People who are opposed to capitalism, for instance, often completely rule out agency, it's not enough to criticize capitalism as a system, they have to say everyone who doesn't succeed in it has absolutely no choice but to fail. And in mirror reflection, capitalists increasingly rely on determinism to justify their hegemony, The Bell Curve being a prime example. Those who argue for homosexuality don't argue on our fundamental freedom, they argue lack of agency. Those who argue for racism argue genetic determinism. Those who argue against racism also often employ determinism (see Guns, Germs and Steel).

[Ostroeuropa]

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comm ... sponse_to/


Also nails why political correctness is bad and SJWs are terrible for society.

I like how no one even tried to answer your question but just complained instead. I think you got your answer. Nice try.

Instead of engaging in a disucssion, the SJWs take the time to bitch and complain that they are offended.

[Morr]

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/37b2na/serious_sjws_of_reddit_what_is_your_response_to/


Also nails why political correctness is bad and SJWs are terrible for society.

I like how no one even tried to answer your question but just complained instead. I think you got your answer. Nice try.

Instead of engaging in a disucssion, the SJWs take the time to bitch and complain that they are offended.

SJW's are pr ogres, bruh.

[Gauthier]

So your solution to PC is... more PC?

The tactics used are out of the box now. All that can be done is changing who uses them.

Which means your constant rantings sgainst political correctness and the Forces of Censorship is just disingenuous hypocritical bullshit now?

Nietzche must have been predicting you.

[Ostroeuropa]

The tactics used are out of the box now. All that can be done is changing who uses them.

Which means your constant rantings sgainst political correctness and the Forces of Censorship is just disingenuous hypocritical bullshit now?

Nietzche must have been predicting you.

Not so. I can point out why their use in specific instances is a social evil.

Violence is a tool, but there is a difference between a thug beating people up to take their money, and someone who's role in society is to take down the thug.

PC should be used to suppress SJWs, feminists, and social conservatives and prevent them from abusing positions of power, or attaining them, which they have shown repeatedly they will use to infest institutions with more of their kind and engage on witch hunts against critics, before curtailing mens rights in the institutions they capture and breeding misandry.

I wouldn't let the Klan obtain offices either, why would I let a feminist?

[Gauthier]

Which means your constant rantings sgainst political correctness and the Forces of Censorship is just disingenuous hypocritical bullshit now?

Nietzche must have been predicting you.

Not so. I can point out why their use in specific instances is a social evil.

Violence is a tool, but there is a difference between a thug beating people up to take their money, and someone who's role in society is to take down the thug.

PC should be used to suppress SJWs, feminists, and social conservatives and prevent them from abusing positions of power, or attaining them, which they have shown repeatedly they will use to infest institutions with more of their kind and engage on witch hunts against critics, before curtailing mens rights in the institutions they capture and breeding misandry.

I wouldn't let the Klan obtain offices either, why would I let a feminist?

Special Snowflake Pleading. More Nietzhean hypocrisy.